The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Liminal]

Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.

I'm sorry your expectations for the success of American workers is low.

and your expectation is another bubble that leads to another collapse?

My expectation is that some people are so motivated by political rhetoric that they can't tolerate any criticism of their ideas. Your logic and actions are no different than the most extreme right wing ideologues you can find anywhere.

 

[pinqy]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.

I can only laugh every time you use the word survey.

Why? Have you never studied statistics and don't understand the concept. Or do you think it's the same as a random dial opinion poll?
Please, tell us what you find amusing about the CPS.

 

[Faun]

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Of course there is.

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

The BLS

And....please go on.

I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly. Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?

 

[Faun]

Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.

I'm sorry your expectations for the success of American workers is low.

and your expectation is another bubble that leads to another collapse?

My expectation is that some people are so motivated by political rhetoric that they can't tolerate any criticism of their ideas. Your logic and actions are no different than the most extreme right wing ideologues you can find anywhere.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but back to the discussion. The expectation you exhibited was a return to an economy that was artificially inflated and which caused the economy to collapse because it was unsustainable.

 

[Liminal]

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Of course there is.

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

The BLS

And....please go on.

I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly. Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?

According to the comprehensive survey of homeless camps.

 

[Liminal]

The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem. Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash. Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate. Ask anyone who works at McDonald's when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job. Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.

Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.

I'm sorry your expectations for the success of American workers is low.

and your expectation is another bubble that leads to another collapse?

My expectation is that some people are so motivated by political rhetoric that they can't tolerate any criticism of their ideas. Your logic and actions are no different than the most extreme right wing ideologues you can find anywhere.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but back to the discussion. The expectation you exhibited was a return to an economy that was artificially inflated and which caused the economy to collapse because it was unsustainable.

That was your assumption based on nothing.

 

[Liminal]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.

I can only laugh every time you use the word survey.

Why? Have you never studied statistics and don't understand the concept. Or do you think it's the same as a random dial opinion poll?
Please, tell us what you find amusing about the CPS.

I actually know a little bit about statistics, I also have some small experience with government. Statistical studies can be designed to say whatever you want them to say, that much I know for sure. What I also know is that the government has absolutely no way of knowing how many people are out of work.

 

[pinqy]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

Exactly how do you think the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.

I can only laugh every time you use the word survey.

Why? Have you never studied statistics and don't understand the concept. Or do you think it's the same as a random dial opinion poll?
Please, tell us what you find amusing about the CPS.

I actually know a little bit about statistics, I also have some small experience with government. Statistical studies can be designed to say whatever you want them to say, that much I know for sure. What I also know is that the government has absolutely no way of knowing how many people are out of work.

How do you know that? Because a tiny percent of the population is homeless?

 

[Faun]

Of course there is.

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

The BLS

And....please go on.

I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly. Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?

According to the comprehensive survey of homeless camps.

Is that where you're posting from? Certainly would explain why you're so concerned about such a small segment of the U.S..

 

[Liminal]

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.

Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.

I can only laugh every time you use the word survey.

Why? Have you never studied statistics and don't understand the concept. Or do you think it's the same as a random dial opinion poll?
Please, tell us what you find amusing about the CPS.

I actually know a little bit about statistics, I also have some small experience with government. Statistical studies can be designed to say whatever you want them to say, that much I know for sure. What I also know is that the government has absolutely no way of knowing how many people are out of work.

How do you know that? Because a tiny percent of the population is homeless?

And how do you know that? How could the government know that when they don't even know how many people are here or who they might be?

 

[Liminal]

Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.

The BLS

And....please go on.

I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly. Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?

According to the comprehensive survey of homeless camps.

Is that where you're posting from? Certainly would explain why you're so concerned about such a small segment of the U.S..

Not much of a Democrat are you. Your heartfelt concern for the homeless is nothing short of inspiring.

 

[TooTall]

Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

So? Let's see you explain how that caused the collapse of the economy......

The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy. Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.

 

[TooTall]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Right, and Obama's average UE rate is.........................?

0.4 of a point higher.

That means Obama's average UE rate is 5.67%. Is that your answer?

 

[TooTall]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

It has been explained in detail several times. Curious minds would already know.

 

[TooTall]

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!

don't expect a lucid answer.

I couldn't dumb it down enough for a curious mind.

 

[Faun]

The BLS

And....please go on.

I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly. Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?

According to the comprehensive survey of homeless camps.

Is that where you're posting from? Certainly would explain why you're so concerned about such a small segment of the U.S..

Not much of a Democrat are you. Your heartfelt concern for the homeless is nothing short of inspiring.

Your apathy is misplaced. My concern for them is relieved by policies in place to help them; which of course, has nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

 

[Liminal]

And....please go on.

I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly. Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?

According to the comprehensive survey of homeless camps.

Is that where you're posting from? Certainly would explain why you're so concerned about such a small segment of the U.S..

Not much of a Democrat are you. Your heartfelt concern for the homeless is nothing short of inspiring.

Your apathy is misplaced. My concern for them is relieved by policies in place to help them; which of course, has nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

You are apparently easily relieved of your responsibility to others.

 

[Faun]

The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

So? Let's see you explain how that caused the collapse of the economy......

The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy. Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

 

[Liminal]

The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.

The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, only 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell only 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.

Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.

So? Let's see you explain how that caused the collapse of the economy......

The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy. Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.

You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.

They addressed the problem. Someone should tell the homeless about it, they'd be thrilled to know.

 

[Faun]

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

It was 5.27%

Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.

Right, and Obama's average UE rate is.........................?

0.4 of a point higher.

That means Obama's average UE rate is 5.67%. Is that your answer?

No, 0.4 of one percent higher than what Obama inherited.

An increase of 1.1 under Bush.

An increase of 0.4 under Obama.

Do you require any more explanation?